RE: [xml-dev] A question about the future of efficient XML

["Miroslav Hajda" <bomi@centrum.cz>]

> From: mike@saxonica.com
> Date: 10.06.2007 19:53
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] A question about the future of efficient XML
>
> Predicting the future is always difficult, and I can't claim a good track
> record at it. However, one of the rules is that the more entrenched a
> technology is, the harder it is to displace it with something better.
> Remember the 3.5inch floppy? It disappeared in the end, but not until
there
> was a technology that was about 500 times better, and even then it took
at
> least five years between obsolescence and extinction.

That means, that it would be first used for issues which market claimed binary XML for (see binary XML use cases), because there is a gap to previous technology and XML cannot be used directly here, right? That should provide good start for that new technology and it might be possible to use it on the web soon too.

Lets assume, that it would be possible to implement modules for currently most used web browsers to support an efficient XML. It might be then possible to convert pages on server-side and advertise such web pages as a new technology and faster solution. Do you think something like that is possible on the market? (I just wonder) 

> And with textual vs binary XML, you don't just have to overcome inertia,
you
> have to overcome the fact that a textual format has very considerable
> advantages in terms of the ability of humans to read and edit the content
> directly. Look at the xsl-list - how many people would offer free advice
and
> help on debugging XSLT stylesheets if the source documents were supplied
in
> binary rather than textual form? Human performance is much more important
> than machine performance.

I was always thinking, that it will be possible to edit efficient XML files with a generic editor as a text file. Well, it might be troublesome because of saving non-valid files, but it should be possible, right?
Even more... You actually don't have to learn anything new, it is still all XML...

For me, XML is like, well, scriptlets. I was thinking about an efficient XML like spliting XML into two separate layers - data layer and human interface layer, like it's similar advantage to split scriptlets in web data and processing instructions.
Was I wrong at this point?

> From: mcepl@redhat.com
> Date: 10.06.2007 23:05
> Subject: [xml-dev]  Re: A question about the future of efficient XML
>
> There is a large group of people, users of different Unix system, 
> which believe you are wrong on this, and that unless there is 
> some really compelling reason (e.g., images, audio/video files), 
> text format is always better. I think unless Unix tradition dies 
> (and I don't think it will be anytime soon), there will be a huge 
> support for the textual XML. Actually, I would even say that 
> these guys are one of big powers causing XML to be succesful in 
> the first place.
>
> Matej

Of course, I agree that the text is really powerfull and have got a lot advantages. But in which point am I wrong? Actually text is encoded as a binary data too, right? I just belive, that data should be stored language independently and it can bring some benefits.

Like I was thinking about, if it would be possible to create virtual files in Unix, which would allow you to handle a binary file like it is a text file...?

Thank you for your answers.
HajdaM, Czech Republic